The youth movement in America,

^rv

* V ^ *

4 ^ <**.

/ <0L

«0V v'TVs 5 /\ <\ '<T.7* <f-

Cy c°N G * ^O * «- 1 * ^ • <£* (\ >

c •<«5$aw‘# ° 4<f* v c *

, K . * *** Cr ® ^

^° ^ * %ll§^ °* ^ ^

v ^ ^%,U\\xsS> * a «. <

^ * r\S * <1^ O *

°^ * ' ’ • A° <?, ‘ • « « V ?>* °p

% iP ,^4^*. ^ ,vs c^

W ^W/k° r

V ^ ** -?W.* / \ ._,

* A Gv *o. A

4^ * t ' <9 <$. (V* 0 " c &

* ^ <k '

/\> o

*

■V /

In**

+ . '.w «$? %

A V V "•*’ jO V

-xy • c e -t ^ rA o^o

o V

'X 4 T> *> U!//S^z? * ' A v OOvWUVSB.

■ / °- .

.... ,. •■••'/ <V^'V

S*. ,-v^'* ^ V P * * °* O ,0V S*' /

<S * t

- ^ Av ™fA0 ♦

?av : $MV/0zi ^ v

* A ^

S v/\

4* AV*V °

** V <$» *

*.

* * $ 1 v .

^ fc • L ' * * <^p

* *N * ■^n^2- -* '

o' vx ri> ' _ , . .

x° v\ * * < o

+ r\ «p %il\\^S> H k/>

o * — « * Cv <£* * * <it

.*. * ” *y <> * o » » ’ .«*•

•* • ”' «X .■*? . > \>

^ *

o f

; ^ v1 •

O A-*

V ♦* ** •

* . * s * A <\

.A . 1 ' 9 * <^A.

vT .Vfe* •%,
•»b ^ .' *W/^ ’

V •

*'‘*V

A :

; 4 /.v *V -

V *♦

v“\v

♦ rv

o cr

-V ^ V p Y ‘ O <A S • • ,

.'*%**:• \ 4? y

, . ° ^v> •

A vP_

♦ As ^

Av ^ '• • sS A <* 'O , » •

r(j o0^, ^o .-'99 **

C •jsFJ^Sv^ o ‘ -r

v eSSXWn^k^ r r r —

,VA

. . o$+

, A <* o-

o. .0^ ^

^ A

> ^ ^ Z* j»

• * 1 AU <S> - o n o

- ^ a ^ a •"

: v^

*>+ A

o >

0 -

* ♦ S ^ \ ^ \> o • A (j> ^ a s S

1T^ i ^ *P /-0 G® * O

• ^ <y

° ^ ^ ^

, v » S.» «- ^

r^A ^ * <*P O - c-t^ a

<5> * 0 M 0 0 ^ O * ff , 1 • ,0

-V ^ ^ st - %

* ^ ",

\¥A" <?,

• ^ » jA^^/k

THE

Youth Movement
in America

By R> M; WHITNEY

“The new struggle of the working class
in Germany can assume such proportions
that they will be in a position to bring
about for us the beginning of the Socialist
era in one of the most important parts
of the world. The young generation of
proletarian youth which has grown up
since the great victorious Russian revolu¬
tion of 1917 and the unsuccessful German
Revolution of 1918, is the one to decide
in a great measure the fate of the ap¬
proaching crisis. The German League
of Youth must be the light cavalry of the
proletarian army which is entering into
difficult struggles against capitalism. The
Communist Youth of Russia, and with
it the other sections of the Young Com¬
munist International, must consider it the
greatest honor to help its brother army,
the Youth of Germany, and through it
the German Revolution.”

From letter of Zinovieff, President of
the Communist International, of Mos¬
cow, printed in The Worker, Communist
Weekly published in America, October
13, 1923.

Price Five Cents.

Published by

The American Defense Society, Inc.

154 Nassau Street, New Yo-ik City.

^2-3^

gift

AUTHOR

FEB £0 *24

V

.Vi 5

THE YOUTH MOVEMENT IN AMERICA.

By R. M. WHITNEY,

Director, Washington Bureau, American Defense
Society, Incorporated.

THE NATIONAL STUDENT FORUM would
like to be recognized as the intelligence back of the
Youth Movement in America. Purporting to be an
open forum, it is working double tides for Socialism,
and the sort of Socialism which is only another name
for Communium. It works in cooperation with
such organizations as the American Civil Liberties
Union.

It is the purpose of the National Student Forum,
and the other organizations which it supports by its
sympathy, to undermine and sink, or overthrow, the
Government of the United States, ar\d to set up in
this country a soviet form of government, such as
Russia now boasts.

This ultimate goal toward which Liberalists, So¬
cialists, Pacifists, Internationalists, Intelligentzia and
Communists alike are striving is always referred to
as “the new social -order.”

Modeled on Intercollegiate Socialist Society.

The National Student Forum is not a pioneer in
its field. The Intercollegiate Socialist Society, to
quote its founder, Upton Sinclair, was the first or¬
ganized efforts of college students to educate them¬
selves, and, incidentally, to educate their educators.”
Mr. Sinclair goes on to explain: /

“We were careful to specify our purposfe: ‘To
promote an intelligent interest in the study of
Socialism; but even with that moderate state¬
ment, only a few institutions would let us in
under our own evil name, AND WE HAD. TO
DISGUISE OURSELVES AS LIBERAL
SOCIETIES AND OPEN FORUMS AND
SOCIAL SCIENCE CLUBS.’”

Later, as Mr. Sinclair himself says, “the name,
‘Socialism’ became so unpopular . . . that the or¬
ganization now calls itself the League for Industrial
Democracy.” But it is a change in name only. The
League for Industrial Democracy is working as har<J
for Socialism and “the new social order” as ever the
Intercollegiate Socialist League could have worked.
Harry W. Laidler is still its secretary, and one of the
board of directors. Alexander Trachtenberg, ad¬
vocate of direct action, contributor to the LIBERA¬
TOR, Communist Monthly, is still the executive
head. Trachtenberg “represented America” at the

3

meeting of the “Enlarged Executive” in Moscow last
June (1923).

Norman Thomas, then one of its directors,
summed up the preceding year’s work of the League
for Industrial Democracy in an article in the New
York Call of June 21, 1923, in which he said that:

“Its representatives have spoken in more than
50 colleges and universities before college
classes, forums, assemblies, chapel audiences and
faculty groups, ESTABLISHING IN THE
GREAT MAJORITY OF THESE INSTITU¬
TIONS SOME MORE OR LESS ENDUR¬
ING CONNECTION THROUGH STUDENT
ORGANIZATIONS.”

The CALL, while ostensibly fighting the Com¬
munists, carried in its upper left-hand corner the
Communist slogan, “Workers of the World, unite!
You have nothing to lose but your chains.”

The Worker, which fights the right wing Socia¬
lists, and makes no pretense of loyalty toward any¬
thing but the. Communist International at Moscow,
carries in its upper left-hand corner of its first page
the slogan:

“Workers of the World, unite! You have nothing
to lose but your chains.”

Norman Thomas, in 1923, took over the editing of
the New York Call. Soon afterward the Communist
slogan in the upper left-hand corner disappeared. Still
later, even the name of the paper was changed — to
the New York Leader — but its policy was not *
changed up to the time it suspended publication. It \
remained the organ for the Socialist Party, and Nor- ;
man Thomas, its editor, is still a member of the
American Civil Liberties Union, and a leader in the
Fellowship of Reconciliation, and a writer of Social-
istic pamphlets and articles. He is also a lecturer on ■
pacifism, at $100 the lecture.

Norman Thomas is one of the Literary Advisers to
The New Student.

Upton Sinclair, contributing editor of the Liberator,
Communist monthly, founder of the I. W. W. and
the American Civil Liberties Union, follows his
dissertation on the League for Industrial Democracy
with this:

“Recently another student organization has
entered the field, the. National Student' Forum,
product of the labors of a group of young Har¬
vard Liberals, with John Rothschild as secre¬
tary.”

John Rothschild is a Socialist. He admits that he
is a Socialist, but he said, when a protest was made to
him against tunning the student bodies socialistic
through his National Student Forum, that he did
not intend to make the organization a Socialist body.
Mr. Rothschild, if he was speaking the truth, must
have let the organization get away from- him.

4

Constituent Organizations.

The National Student Forum is to the Socialists
and Communists in colleges and universities what the
National Council for Prevention of War is to the
Pacifists and Internationalists — a clearing house for
their organizations. It now lists as its constituent
organizations :

Barnard Social Science Club.

Bryn Mawr Liberal Club.

Dartmouth Round Table.

George Washington University Free Lance Club.
Harvard Student Liberal Club.

Hood College Contemporary Club.

Hollins (Virginia) Student Forum.

Howard (colored) Student Progressive Club.
Mt. Holyoke Forum.

Miami University Round Table.

New York University Law School Liberal Club.
Northwestern University Liberal League.
Oberlin College Liberal Club.

Park College Social Science Club.

Rockford College International Relations Club.
Radcliffe Liberal Club.

Stanford University Forum.

Swarthmore Polity Club.

University of Chicago Liberal Club.

University of Colorado Forum.

Union Theological Seminary Contemporary
Club.

Vassar College Political Association.

Wellesley College Forum.

Western College Forum
Yale Liberal Club.

THE NEW STUDENT, “an intercollegiate fort¬
nightly published by the National Student Forum,”
in the preamble to the constitution of the National
Student Forum, says that the students:

“dedicate this organization to the scientifically
enquiring mind; they declare it unbiased in any
controversy, yet permitting within itself the ex¬
pression of every bias; they declare its one
principle to be freedom of expression.”

Radical In Aims.

This “freedom of expression” about which they
make such ado seems to apply only to revolutionary
deas. If a student, an outside speaker, or a profes¬
sor in one of the colleges has anything to say along
>ane, conservative lines, the National Student
Forum is not interested, or expresses itself as em¬
phatically antagonistic. Upton Sinclair, in his praise
pf the National Student Forum, and with particular
■eference to the preamble, says:

“As an illustration of the activities of this
group I mention that the Harvard Liberal Club,

5

during the year 1922, had sixty luncheon speak¬
ers in five months, including such radicals as
Clark Getts, Lincoln Steffens, Florence Kelly,
(Wischnewetsky), Raymond Robbins, Frank
Tannenbaum, Roger Baldwin, Percy MacKaye,
Clare Sheridan, Norman Angel and W. E. B.
Du Bois.” |

To say that anyone that Upton Sinclair acknowl¬
edges as radical is radical is like saying that saffron
is yellow. Sinclair, Scott Nearing and H. W. L.
Dana are of those who do not recognize lukewarm
Socialists. Therefore, it is hardly necessary to dwell
on the radicals who spoke before the Harvard
Liberal Club, the parent organization from which
the National Student Forum sprung. Mr. Sinclair
says the radicals were “properly balanced by a
group of respectable people including Admiral Sims,
Hamilton Holt, President Eliot and a nephew of|
Lord Brice.”

Let’s take a look at the “respectable” people who
balanced the radicals.

“Respectable” Speakers Pink.

Admiral Sims, the first “respectable” mentioned by
Upton Sinclair, stated September loth that he had
never spoken for the National Student Forum. If
he spoke at all at Harvard during 1922 his having
done so should not have been used “as an illustra-j
tion of the activities of this group” — the National
Student Forum.

Hamilton Holt, the second “respectable” on thq
list, is an Internationalist and a Pacifist, as his own
activities show. He is director of the Church Peace
Union and the League to Enforce Peace. He is a
member of the Friends of Russian Freedom; of the
International Conciliation Society; of the Italy-
America Society, the Netherlands-America Founda¬
tion, and the Poland-America Society. He is presi¬
dent of the American-Scandinavian Foundation, and
his name as chairman, headed the list of officers of
the American Neutral Conference Committee, which
was organized under the direction of Rebecca Shelley,
who got her ideas direct from Carl Lindhagen, the
Socialist mayor of Stockholm. As a member of
various committees working against preparedness,
the name of Hamilton Holt is bracketed with that
of such well known enemies of our present govern¬
ment as Oswald Garrison Villard, the millionaire
Socialist Morris Hillquit, born in Russia, and Lillian
D. Wald. Considering his affiliations, one would
hardly think of Dr. Holt as doing anything to coun¬
teract radicalism.

President (Emeritus) Eliot of Harvard was born
in 1834. Age has privileges no one can question.

6

From this it is easy to see that no great weight
was thrown into the other side of the scales to
“balance” the arguments of the radicals. On the
other hand, it looks as if those who are out to upset
the belief of young Americans in their Government
and its institutions had things pretty much their own
way in their talks before the Harvard Liberal Club,
which is a constituent and very active part of the
National Student Forum.

Radical From Its Inception.

In the June 2, 1923, issue of The New Student,
John Rothschild, first executive secretary of the Na¬
tional Student Forum, tells of the organization of
the Intercollegiate Liberal League, in 1921. Mr.
Rothschild is a Harvard graduate. Reading between
the lines, one could easily discern that the Harvard
Students Liberal Club was back of the Intercol¬
legiate Liberal League, which, merging with the
National Student Committee for Limitation of
Armaments last Spring, formed the National Student
Forum. Mr. Rothschild does not call the club by it
name. He says:

“Some of us — then students in a great Eastern
University — had a feeling of the new era back in
1919. There were those among us who felt
themselves filled with the truth — who thought
they understood what was happening in the
world, and how events would shape themselves.

. . . Others knew their own confusion, but were
eager to find an orientation to what they felt, that
eventually they might know what parts to play
in the new world. Those who knew burned for
action, and those who were less sure, wanted
enlightment. So the group had two functions:
discussion and study, PRIMARILY FOR
THOSE WHO DID NOT UNDERSTAND
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, INDUS¬
TRIAL DEMOCRACY, and in general, what
were thought to be important phenomena of the
new age; and for those who sought action—*
missionary work in the student body at large.

After paying a tribute to the “honest of the group,”
Mr. Rothschild admits that “anxious as some of us
were to rouse the social sympathies of our fellow
students, we saw that the way to establishing intelli¬
gent belief lay in a fair presentation of fact.” Then
he goes on:

“In private discussions and in open meetings
we welcomed the testimony of radicals who
gave satisfaction to one element among us, and
conservatives who reassured the others. Facts
strengthened the social idealism of the unsure,
and in some cases focussed it; facts modified
and matured the convictions of the possessed.”

7

Knowing the patter of all Intellectuals, Liberalists,
Socialists and Communists, it is not hard to reckon
what Mr. Rothschild would consider “facts.” To
Mr. Rothschild and his followers, a statement is a
fact only when it bears out one of their contentions.
Of Mr. Rothschild’s brand of “facts” here are some
illustrations:

“The Russians won their point through
economic justice at home, propaganda and open
diplomacy. . . . The cause for which the workers
are contending in Russia will triumph. . . . be¬
cause they have built a higher form of civiliza¬
tion than that which exists anywhere else in
the world.”— SCOTT NEARING.

“A great many of these people (Americans)
are incurably conservative and by the passion
of their biased convictions dominate the masses
they lead. Their notions about 100 per cent
Americanism, about Christianity, about educa¬
tion and about international affairs are as nar¬
row and as dangerous as the Prussianism they
pretend to have destroyed.” — PIET ROEST.

“Storm and Stress. What is born in the
depths of your adoring, loving soul, which you
make so humble, so trembling with thanks, can
never be unclean, can never be ignoble.”

—JOACHIM FRIEDRICH.

“Capitalism can no longer make a tolerable
world, or preserve for us the heritage of civiliza¬
tion. International Socialism can do these
things. . . . Those who oppose the advent of
Socialism take upon themselves a very grave
responsibility.”— BERTRAND RUSSELL.

Piet Roest of Holland and Joachim Friedrich of
Germany are two of the six foreign students brought
to America by Messrs. Rothschild and Pratt. Scott
Nearing and Bertrand Russell are Socialist writers
and lecturers in high favor with all the Intellectuals.

In his article in the New Student, which he called
“Retrospect, Forecast and a Personal Confession,”
Mr. Rothschild says that in the Spring of 1921:

“We called the Intercollegiate conference of
students who, like ourselves, were puzzling
about the world, and the result was an articula¬
tion of the movement in an organization. We
called ourselves the Intercollegiate Liberal
League.”

And in the spring of 1922 the Intercollegiate
Liberal League lost its identity by merging with the
National Student Committee for the Limitation of
Armaments to form the National Student Forum.
The policy of the new organization is the combined
policy of the two older organizations, to which has
been added support of the German Youth Movement.

8

Noted Radicals Speak at Organization.

The first issue of the New Student, the official
organ of the National Student Forum, carries on its
first page three titles only. The Intercollegiate
Liberal League; Academic Freedom, by Professor
Edwin R. Seligman; Report of the National Student
Committee for the Limitation of Armaments. In the
first artcile, which is an account of the organization
of the Intercollegiate Liberal League, mention is
made of “persons of eminence” who “lent them¬
selves to the occasion.” The speakers mentioned
are: Charles W. Eliot, Dean L. B. R. Briggs, Walter
Lippman, U. S. Senator Ladd, Andrew Furuseth,
Henry B. Mussey, Francis Neilson, Charlotte Per¬
kins Gilman, Mrs. Arthur G. Rotch, John Haynes
Holmes, H. N. McCracken.

Let’s take a look at some of these “persons of
eminence.” Respect for the aged lays the finger of
silence on our lips. We pass over the first speaker
mentioned.

The second, Le Baron Russell Briggs, A. B., LL.
D., etc., was president of Radcliffe College, which has
its Student International Assembly and its RadclifTe
Liberal Club.

Walter Lippman, formerly an editor, now a con¬
tributor to The New Republic, is the author of
numerous radical and Socialistic articles.

U. S. Senator Edwin F. Ladd, Russian sympathiser,
upholder of Soviet Russia; visitor to Russia in 1923.
He is a Harvard graduate.

Andrew Furuseth is a Socialist from Norway. He
is now a resident of San Francisco; official secretary
of the Sailors’ Union of the Pacific and president of
the International Seamen’s Union of America. His
education was had in the common schools.

Henry Mussey is an acknowledged Socialist; left
Columbia University because of his radicalism; now
connected with the New School for Social Research
in New York. In Washington he was correspondent
for the American Civil Libterties Union.

Francis Nielson is an Englishman by birth, mem¬
ber of British Parliament in 1910-15. He is a founder
of the Brotherhood Movement in England. With
John Haynes Holmes he is editor of Unity, “a
journal of the religion of democracy,” and with
Albert Jay Nock, Suzanne La Follette, and others,
he is editor of The Freeman.

Charlotte Perkins Gilman is a Socialist and the
author of several Communistic songs as well as a
lot of Socialistic articles and books.

Rev. John Haynes Holmes in “The Revolt of
Youth,” a pamphlet, Series 1923-24, says:

“We old folks have long expected and exacted
obedience from our children. Nothing could be

9

more intolerable or unlovely. In no relationship
between human beings has obedience any proper
place. To the person who gives, it is a humilia¬
tion; to the person who receives, it is an injury.
Obedience means subjection — the subjection of
the weaker to the stronger; and this is as
abominable an attitude in the home as in the
state. Hence democracy, which ends sovereignty
of every kind!”

“What stands out transcendent, it seems to me,
is the fact that we have here a new Declaration
of Independence— a declaration of independence
for the young. W^e have freed the slaves; we
freed, or are freeing, women; now youth arises
and asks its turn — nay, asserts and takes its
turn! Our young people have come to the time
when they propose to be free of the domination
of their elders — free to follow their own courses
and seek their own goals. . . . To my way of
thinking this Declaration of Independence is as
glorious as all previous declarations of the same
kind; and the Youth Movement, which embodies
it, not a peril but a great hope to humanity.”

“From the very beginning of life, the child
must be protected from intrusion, interference,
warping and moulding influences of every de¬
scription. He must be left to be himself, trained
and educated to be himself. Not obedience and
reverence, but courage, self-reliance, experiment,
adventure, rebellion, must be the spirit of his
life.”

Commending, in highest terms of praise, the Youth
Movement of Germany, Dr. Holmes says, on page 16,
of the pamphlet, “Revolt of Youth”:

“Our purpose, say the Wandervoegel, is ‘to
form our own life in sincerity and upon our own
responsibility.’ With this idea in mind, they re¬
fuse to recognize adult leadership or counsel.
They will not have older people among them.
In the beginning, when they went off on their
hikes, they took chaperones along. Later they
refused to accept supervision of this kind. Now
they organize always in pairs, a boy to every
girl, a girl to every boy, tramp off to their
Herberger, or rest huts, hold their festive cere¬
monies and dances, spend often the night, sleep¬
ing in the hut or under the trees, and always
without adult control . . .”

Served Prison Term.

Of the speakers who have appeared before the
National Student Forum, or some one of its con-
stitutent organizations, within the past year, men¬
tion might be made of a few of them, with a glance
at their records.

10

which amounts to conclusive proof, is found in a
telegram dated March 4, 1918, and signed by him
and Louise Bryant. The telegram was addressed
to Lenin and Trotsky, Smolny Institute, Petrograd,
and read:

“Important you designate unofficial represen¬
tative here who can survey situation, weigh
facts and cable conclusions you might accept
and act upon. Will undertake secure means of
communication between such man and yourself.”

Hammers United States Supreme Court.

Florence Kelley (Wischnewetzky), like Steffens
and Getts, a speaker for the Harvard Liberal Club,
has been a radical all the sixty-four years of her life,
it seems. She has small use for any of the depart¬
ments of the United States Government, but particu¬
larly she hammers the Supreme Court. She hammers
it in season and out of season. Wherever two or
three are gathered together in the name of “Liber¬
alism,” there may be found Florence Kelley (Wisch¬
newetzky), abusing the United States Supreme
Court.

Clark Getts, luncheon speaker for the Harvard
Liberal Club, served a term in Leavenworth prison
because of his war activities. After his release he
was associated with the Federated Press, which sup¬
plies news for all Communist publications.

Lincoln Steffens, member of the Amnesty League,
picked up Socialistic ideas when he was a student in
Germany (1889-92). He was a member of the Bul¬
litt mission to Russia, and, while his own country
was at war, and needed the help of every man,
woman and child under the protection of the Govern¬
ment of the United States, Lincoln Steffens was
working with Lenin and Trotsky. Evidence of this,

Mrs. Kelley was born “Kelley.” She got her right
to be called Mrs. when she married one Wischnew¬
etzky. She is an ardent advocate of socialised gov¬
ernment. As long ago as 1897 she was the editor
of ARCHIV FUR SOCIALEGESTZEBUNG. She
was one of the much applauded speakers at the meet¬
ing of the Trade Union Educational League in Wash¬
ington in May, 1923, and at the June conference of
the League for Industrial Democracy at Camp
Tamiment, where she declared that the Judges of
the United States Supreme Court worked overtime
to upset all legislation that was for the benefit of
the children, the women and the general workers of
the country. She had a good word for Judge Bran¬
ded, but said that he, working alone, could do
nothing to stop the evil acts of the capitalists as¬
sociated with him on the supreme bench.

Mrs. Kelley (Wischnewetzky) was the first presi¬
dent of the Intercollegiate Socialist Society. She is

11

now one of the vice-presidents of the organization
under its new name — League for Industrial Democ-
racy_the other three vice-presidents being the late
Charles P. Steinmetz, Evans Clark and Arthur
Gleason.

Florence Kelley (Wischnewetzky) was part of the
Conference for Democracy which held forth during
the war, and advocated:

“The American people, joining hands with the
new democracy of Russia, must lay the basis for
permanent world peace by establishing indus¬
trial democracy.”

All the speeches at this conference, where Mrs.
Kelley (Wischnewetzky) was chairman, were in op¬
position to the policy of the United States.

Prominent as Anti-American and Pro-Russian.

Raymond Robins, another much lauded speaker of
the most active constituent member of the National
Student Forum, is believed to have used his post as
commander of the American Red Cross in Russia
(1917-18) to arouse sympathy for Soviet Russia.
Colonel Robins has spoken many times in this coun¬
try of Russia and Russian affairs, and always with a
favorable slant toward Soviet Russia. He calls him¬
self a Social Economist. He has done a lot of social
settlement work, which, according to Amy Woods,
secretary of the United States Section of the
Women’s International League for Peace and Free¬
dom, is calculated to make internationalists of nation¬
alists. He is an advocate of organized labor and of
land value taxation, and is a “progressive” Republican
in politics. His speeches have a decidedly socialistic
trend. His book, “Raymond Robins’ Own Story,”
having to do with what he would have the public
believe were his experiences and impressions while
he was in Russia with the American Red Cross, is
heartily recommended by the Communist press.

Raymond Robins first came into prominence as
the husband of Mrs. Raymond Robins (Margaret
Drier) who, May 20, 1907, “led thirty-seven hundred
cheering, boisterous, Socialist, anarchist, trade-
unionist members of liberal societies and sympathi¬
sers through down town and west side streets in a
demonstration” in Chicago.

Frank Tannenbaum is one of the accepted “mouth¬
pieces” for amnesty and pacifism. His well camou¬
flaged Communistic articles appear intermittently in
Century, which Pacifists and Liberalists now claim
as being “with them.” He is one of the speakers
mentioned by Upton Sinclair in connection with the
National Student Forum.

Director of American Civil Liberties Union.

Roger Baldwin, director of the American Civil
Liberties Union, which organization is dubbed by

12

government officials as subversive to the best inter¬
ests of the Government, has not only spoken for
organizations that are members of the National Stu¬
dent Forum, but is a man very much praised by Mr.
George D. Pratt, Jr., now active secretary of the
National Student Forum. Mr. Pratt says, in a letter
to me, copies of which he liberally distributed:

“Mr. Rothschild did indeed declare himself a
friend of Roger Baldwin when you tauntingly
spoke of the latter as a draft-dodger. He (Bald¬
win) was a conscientious objector in the most
noble and best recognized meaning of that term,
and served his sentence in prison bravely.”

Mr. Baldwin was an officer of the American Union
against Militarism during the war. He was also an
organizer of the People’s Council, in which capacity
he wrote to the Communist, Louis P. Lochner: “We
want also to look like patriots in everything we do.”
This is the man Mr. Pratt calls a “conscientious ob¬
jector in the most noble and best recognized mean¬
ing of that term.”

W. E. B. Du Bois is a mulatto member of the In¬
telligentzia who stands for complete social equality
of white and black. He is clever, and has made more
than a local name for himself by his writing, much
of which appears in the LIBERATOR (a Communist
monthly). The policies he advocates are directly in
line with the American Civil Liberties Union, the
League for Industrial Democracy, the Women’s In¬
ternational League for Peace and Freedom and the
Communists of Moscow. Du Bois has spoken for
units of the National Student Forum.

Clare Sheridan^ another speaker for the Harvard
Liberal Club, a unit of the National Student Forum,
is British, a sculptor and writer. Norman Angell is
also British, with an American wife. He is a Pacifist.
Percy MacKaye, the poet, comes from good old New
England stock, but has become a Socialist mal¬
content.

Paul Jones, at one time Episcopal Bishop of Utah,
is the active head of the Fellowship of Reconcilia¬
tion, and a contributor to the American Civil Liber¬
ties Union. Mr. Jones was one of the speakers at
the Camp Tamiment Conference of the League for
Industrial Democracy last June, when he said:

“Clear thinking on the subject of war is needed
before ‘next steps’ can be considered. The first
thing is to dismiss all ideas of glory, nobility,
heroism or patriotism in regard to war.”

Frederick J. Libby, Pacifist, and head of the Na¬
tional Council for Prevention of War, and Rabbi
Stephen S. Wise, well known for his pacifism, are
both advisers to the National Student Forum. Rabbi
Wise was born in Budapest. He came to New York
when he was a boy, and studied at the College of the

13

City of New York. He is founder and director of
the Eastern Council of Liberal Rabbis, and founder
of the Zionist organization in America. His daughter,
Justine Wise, is on the executive committee of the
National Student Forum.

Mary Church Terrell, of Washington, D. C., is
the colored member of the executive committee of
the Women’s International League for Peace and
Freedom. Like DuBois, she is advocate of complete
social as well as political equality for the negroes.
She is a contributor to the New Student.

Harry F. Ward, of the American Civil Liberties
Union and the Federal Council of Churches, is one
of the literary advisers to the National Student
Forum through the New Student. In the last issue
of the second volume, June 2, 1923, Dr. Ward most
urgently advises all students to read “The Decay of
Capitalist Civilization,” by Sidney and Beatrice
Webb. In praise of the authors, he says that the
Webbs are the “original labor-researchers of Eng¬
land . . . mainly responsible for the educational policy
and propaganda of the Fabian Society.” He recom¬
mends all the many books of the Webbs, mention¬
ing particularly “The Decay of Capitalist Civiliza¬
tion,” which he outlines, and “A Constitution for the
Socialist Commonwealth of Great Britain.”

Other books recommended by Harry F. Ward for
the students of the National Student Forum are
“Labor and the New Social Order;” “Incentives in
the New Industrial Order;” “Liberalism and Indus¬
try;” “Organizing for Work;” Towney’s “Acquisi¬
tive Society,” and Veblen’s “Theory of Modern Busi¬
ness Enterprise.”

Dr. Ward is a member of the executive board of
the National Student Forum, and is himself the
author of several books and pamphlets. It is signifi¬
cant that The New Student, in announcing his mem¬
bership on the board, thought it worth while men¬
tioning that he was the author of “The New Social
Order.”

Another member of the executive board is Dr.
Joseph Jv. Hart of the University of Chicago, as¬
sociate editor of SURVEY and directors of the Phila¬
delphia School of Social Science. He is a lecturer
also for the New School for Social Science in New
York, boosted by Upton Sinclair.

William Palmer Ladd, an Episcopal clergyman
and chairman of the Social service Commission for
the Federation of Churches; Dr. William F. Ogburn,
sociologist, author of “Social Change;” Beatrice
Lowndes Earle, “who served as secretary of the New
School for Social Research,” (New Student); Sylvia
Kopald, who is “lecturing on labor problems in a
sociology seminary,” (New Student), and Harold
Evans, “a Philadelphia Quaker lawyer, member of

National Young Democracy Committee and for some
time in the Friends’ child-feeding work in Germany”
(New Student) are more of the graduate members
of the executive board of the National Student
Forum. All of them are Socialists or socialistic.

Eleanor M. Phelps, as associate secretary of the
National Student Forum in 1922, gave, in the Octo¬
ber 7 number, a list of “some of those who have ex¬
pressed their willingness to assist the students.” This
is the list given by Miss Phelps:

“In the Dicussion of American Foreign Rela¬
tions, European Rehabilitation, etc.:

“Dr. B. M. Anderson, of the Chase National
Bank and the Institute of Politics; Dr. James G.
McDonald, of the Foreign Policy Association;
Dr. Scott Nearing, Mr. Oswald G. Villard, of
The Nation.” (One conservative; three radicals.)

“In the discussion of the coal situation:

“From the viewpoint of the operators — J. D. A.
Morrow, of the National Coal Association;

“From the viewpoint of labor — Mr. Robert
Bruere, of the Bureau of Industrial Research;
Mr. Christ J. Golden, member of the Nationali¬
zation Committee of the United Mine Workers
of America.” (2 Rad. No Conservative).

“From the viewpoint of the technician — Mr.
Hugh Archibald, author of ‘The Four Hour Day
In Coal,’ and Mr. H. Foster Bain, director of
the U. S. Bureau of Mines;

“From the viewpoint of the journalist — C. H.
Lesher, Editor Coal Age.”

Search the New Student issue by issue and you
will not find one advocate for patriotism, for our
government and institutions as they now stand, who
is upheld by the National Student Forum.

“Class Struggle” and “I. W. W.”

What you will find upheld is the Youth Movement,
which started in Germany; industrial democracy;
amnesty for “political” prisoners, and such arguments
as these:

“Maybe the I. W. W.’s have a real cause.”

“Maybe it could be demonstrated that the Ger¬
mans are not a cowardly race.”

“Maybe our professor fails to see the class strug¬
gle because he is temperamentally incapable of un¬
derstanding any struggle.”

Nothing criminal in any of these “maybe’s” if they
were offset by arguments showing the other side of
the question — but they’re not. Instead, you will find
such statements as this:

“WE WOULD RATHER SCRAP THE
CONSTITUTION AND ITS BILL OF
RIGHTS THAN DISTORT OUR MIND
WITH POPULAR ECONOMIC AND SO¬
CIOLOGIC SUPERSTITIONS.”

15

The “superstitions” so much feared are belief in
the Government, the Bible and its teachings, and the
support of recognized moral and social standards for
right living and right doing.

The issue of March 3, 1923, was a fat “Special Sup¬
plement Published in Germany,” with only a leaflet
for the American edition. John Rothschild had the
lead story, “Why Young america Looks to Young
europe.” “The Sense of Community in the German
Youth Movement” is an expurgated account of the
Weltjugeldliga, the World League of Youth. Much
stress is laid upon the community life of the young
wanderers. Says the writer of this article, Adolph
Reichwein :

“Whether they sang, played, danced, did gym¬
nastics or wandered, they did everything in com¬
mon. . . . They became reunited with nature and
experienced a new feeling toward the body . . .”

. . . “The movement in its first instinctive revolt
was of a purely romantic character. All that
was artificial, conventional and complicated, they
opposed with the freshness and natural bloom
of youth and good fellowship. . . . Then they
began the struggle with the capitalistic order
of things.”

After the War the Youth Movement split into two
wings, says Reichwein:

“The left Radicals, the Communists, and the
right Radicals, the Voelkische (People’s Party),
who, in the ensuing fights, often opposed one
another weapon in hand, although they were
united in their resolution to sever all ties with
the past.”

Whole Movement Socialist.

Reichwein, in his New Student article, explains
that the whole movement is Socialist. The political
grouping was, he says, according to the tempera¬
ment of the individual:

“Those acting on instinctive feeling joined the
ranks of the People’s Party, while the more logi¬
cally inclined went over to the international-
socialistic party.” (Literally, the Communist
Party.)

However much others may seek to obscure the
aims of the Youth Movement, the German writers
in the German Supplement of the New Student make
its purpose clear enough.

“Youth has, as a movement, one thing above all
others to do now,” says Hans Albert Forster of
Leipzig, — “to turn their knowledge into action, that all
work in the service of the small . and smallest things
may merge and become with the great onward route
of the organic world revolution”

16

Hans Schlichting of Hamburg asks: “What does
the Youth Movement mean to us young Proletar¬
ians?” and answers himself by saying that it means:

“Our support of the class combats of the
Labor Party, our faith in the higher develop¬
ment of man, and our refusal to accept the in¬
tellectual conception of history of the bour¬
geoisie. . . . Our mental attitude toward our time
leaves us no alternative. . . . than to assist in the
destruction of the capitalistic spirit as hostile
to the personal and economic world.”

Erna Behne of Hamburg told “Why We Wander.”
She puts it delicately:

“Something came over us that was stronger
than every-day custom — we could not breathe
within the high walls — some unknown force im¬
pelled us to seek for real living life in nature.

. . . We went in sandals, bareheaded, and in loose
clothes that gave us a triumphant bodily feeling
of being one with the air and sun, and that
strengthened and tanned our bodies.”

Christians No Longer.

Walter Pahl of Leipzig, in his article entitled: “The
Religious Movement in the German Youth Move¬
ment,” says:

“We must regain the body if we serve God
without the severe beauty of our blood. We
must regain the body through our yearning, we
must reconstruct matter if we wish to find God.
. . . We are Christians no longer! We wish for
man the entirely — and not a part of him. And
so we released the body, and danced the dance
of the earth and the stars within us. The struggle
towards this release marks the stage in which
the German Youth is at present. But we know
we are on the right road — and we see the torch
is burning to light us beyond the path of priests
and churches!”

Siegfried Kawerau of Charlottenburg, in his New
Student article called “Youth and Eros,” exclaims
that:

“Youth and Eros are two different things!
Eros is much vaster. Eros is the god of the
unity of body and soul, the god of overwelling
joy. . . . Eros is the ever-streaming, flowing,
trickling force which moves and inspires our
whole soul and body. . . . sexuality is restrained
need of the body, concentrated and tormenting.”

Paul Lambrecht sums up the Youth Movement in
his article under the head: “The Common Front of
Youth,” in which he appeals to the “young people of
the earth” after this fashion:

“Comrades! Do you not feel the pain and
profanity of life everywhere? Do your eyes not

17

fill with tears, your hearts with wrath, and youi
souls overflow with desire for other things? Dc
you feel all this when you listen to the call o:
your young blood? . . . Then you will know, too
that help only comes through those who dare
all to be what they really feel — to those who at¬
tempt no compromise, but tear the miserable
balance sheet of their elders in pieces, and ven¬
ture to live, live, LIVE!”

Trickery Has to Be Used.

Sponsors for the German Youth Movement ir
America have to be more restrained. Mrs. Rache
Davis DuBois, of the Women’s International Leagu(
for Peace and Freedom, contributor to the Americar
Civil Liberties Union, is head of the Youth Move¬
ment as sponsored by the Women’s Internationa
League for Peace and Freedom in the United States
Mrs. DuBois attended, and was one of the speakers
at the Camp Tamiment Conference of the League foi
Industrial Democracy. In a talk with Harry Laidler
she said that her work was “very radical,” but she
had to cover it up “under the guise of education” tc
get it into the schools and colleges. Her work ac¬
tually, but not nominally, is a part of the Weltjugend-
liga. She studied the Youth Movement in Germany
and made it a part of the U. S. Section of the
Women’s International League for Peace and Free¬
dom. She is now organizing the young people ir
Pennsylvania.

Just What It Means.

In an article in the New Student, translated frorr
the German of Werner Jantschge by Mildred Wert¬
heimer, the aims of the Weltjugendliga are stated
broadly and vaguely, as a “wish to aid in permeating
the aroused consciousness of the time with a spiri'
strong enough and ideal enough to overcome the cus¬
tomary reliance on force and self-interest in man’s
dealings with his fellows.”

The principles for which the Weltjugendliga stanc
ready to fight, according to Herr Jantschge, in th<
New Student, are:

“Against race hatred, profit of men in men
the slaughter of human beings and the destruc
tion of valuable goods;

“Against the glorification of war, educatioi
for the use of force and the creation of a thirs
for blood;

“Against the falsification of religion, philoso
phy, love of home and country, in order to un
chain and carry out mass slaughter;

“Against the control and hiring of convictions
above all in the press, and the use of lies an<
conspiracy in creating opinion;

18

“For the friendly intercourse of peoples and
a new ordering of society through cooperative
industry, peaceful work, and realization of the
sacredness of human life;

“For the honoring of peace, justice and human
excellence.

“For freedom of opinion and belief, and the
subordination of selfish aims in comradeship;
for independence of public opinion, for truth and
candor between peoples, societies and in¬
dividuals.

“For a native culture springing from the peo¬
ple themselves.”

All these “againsts” ;and “fors” are very fine and
good, if they meant what they say — and no more.
Unfortunately, these principles put into practice
mean :

Against patriotism, national defense and pre¬
paredness; against all military training; against his¬
torical facts concerning military heroes, great bat¬
tles; against all teaching that would breed love of
country, reverence for church and religion; against
any attempt to curb anti-American propaganda. FOR
internationalism, pacifism, socialism, liberalism, “free¬
dom of opinion and belief” only so long as it is radi¬
cal and revolutionary.

“Expression of Spirit.”

In the New Student of May 5, 1923, an editorial
“explains” the Youth Movement in this country and
disclaims any connection with the German Youth
Movement. I quote:

“The Youth MoVement is spontaneous — a
growth out of the youth of this or that country.
It has no creed, no organization. It is a demon-
x stration of a large number of young people
spontaneously in motion. The living, force of
the Youth Movement is an attitude, a spirit. . . .
Therefore the German edition of the New Stu¬
dent (March 3, 1923) can be of no use to the
young people of America except as a national
expression of a spirit which is in all of us.”

However “spontaneous” the Youth Movement may
be, this “explanation” was anything else. It was
brought out by a pamphlet by Mr. Ralph M. Easley,
foreword by Mr. Conde B. Pallen, showing up the
Youth Movement as it is. Read the apology of the
New Student for the “explanation” of the Youth
Movement:

“It would harclly be necessary to explain a
thing of this sort were it not for the fact that a
couple of old gentlemen in the National Civic
Federation went to the trouble of publishing a
frenzied, extremely inaccurate pamphlet on the
Youth Movement. . . . How suspicious and self-

19

satisfied these old fellows are! They have no
faith in their young people, and they spend the
last years of their lives screaming heresy at a
world in which spiritually or mentally they have
long since ceased to exist.”

A preacher from the Middle West, who is less than
a year younger than either of the “couple of old gen¬
tlemen in the National Civic Federation,” grew witty'
and sarcastic over the Easley pamphlet, and unbur¬
dened himself of his wit in the August 22 issue of
The Nation, to this effect:

“The Stars and Stripes still fly over the Uni¬
versity. Thanks to Mr. Easley and his Civic
Federation. The National Student Forum, in its
effort to promote friendship and understanding
between European and American students, ar¬
ranged a tour of the colleges by a select group
of students. They came to the University. A
brilliant young Englishman. A Czech filled with
enthusiasm. . . . And — tread gently! — one of our
late enemy, a brilliant lad of 21 years from the
University of Heidelberg. They came to tell of
the spiritual ideals of the youth of Europe.

“Thanks to Mr. Easley, their (the foreign stu¬
dents’) heresies did not foul the pure air of the
University. The redoubtable Easley issued an
encyclical. It told the dreadful truth. He waxed
eloquent over the Youth Movement in Europe.
He saw them leading in a concerted protest
against war. They were red . . . pacifists . . .
socialists. . . . anarchists.”

Europe “Scoured” to Find Right Men.

Messrs. Pratt and Rothschild visited twelve coun¬
tries and made an intensive study of the youth of
six countries to find the men they wanted to appear
before the college students of this country. They
were looking for men who could put across the
“ideals of the Youth Movement” without giving the
general public too much knowledge of what this
movement really means. If the men were too openly
Communistic, it would not be wise for them to come
over. Hear the sad story of Broch.

Theodore Broch, a Communist of Norway, was
one of the students they engaged. Broch’s activities
for the Communist party of Moscow happened to be
so well known in this country that the authorities,
hearing that he was coming, announced that he would
not be allowed to land. Finding it impossible to get
this revolutionist into the United States, Messrs.
Pratt and Rothschild issued a statement to the effect
that:

“Theodore Broch of Norway, with whom we
had arranged for a lecture tour in this country,
has decided not to come, in view of the fact that

20

it is quite evident the authorities would object to
his landing.”

But before it was known to these young men that
Broch could not land in this country, Mr. Roths¬
child had written a letter saying that the Norwegian
was a member of the Nascent Anti-Militarist Move¬
ment and the Student Christian Movement and of the
Nationalistic Cultural Movement of Young Peasants
and the Movement of the Communists. In the same
letter Mr. Rothschild declares that he and Mr. Pratt
have “no prejudice against Communists.”

In his letter of introduction to Broch, Mr. Roths¬
child, laying down the common law of the wool-
pullers in the United States, wrote:

“We are concentrating ourselves entirely on
the problem of arousing students wherever we
may go, and our method may often undergo
change.”

In other words, some loyal students are mentally
more alert than others, not so easily taken in by
sentimental twaddle. The same program won’t fit
everywhere.

More Camouflage.

“We plan three or four days’ stay at each
place,” Mr. Rothschild continues his instruc¬
tions. “One day for the speeches, the rest of
the time for social opportunities. We shall travel
as modestly as possible — because we believe that
the greater our simplicity, the more convincing
will be the mission.”

Mr. Rothschild warns Broch against letting the
public know that he is a Communist, but makes this
concession :

“If at any time you wish openly to tell people
in private conversation what you are politically,
and why you are what you are, you are free to
do so. This may involve some risks, but there
are risks we can not ask you to avoid.”

Quite clearly, the “risks” to which Mr. Rothschild
so delicately refers are risks to the reputation of the
National Student Forum. It is not at all Mr. Roths¬
child’s intention, and it is very far from Mr. Pratt’s
present wish, to have the National Student Forum
looked upon by the general public, or even by the
colleges in general, as a Communistic organization,
or a disloyal institution. Whether they would admit
it or not, “We want also to look like patriots in
everything we do,” is their slogan now, just as it
was the slogan of the People’s Council in Septem¬
ber, 1917.

Roger N. Baldwin, the admired and honored friend
of both John Rothschild and George D. Pratt, Jr.,
Roger N. Baldwin, the draft dodger, whom Mr. Pratt
calls “a conscientious objector in the most noble and

21

best recognized sense of that term,” would most
heartily approve of Mr. Rothschild’s letter of instruc¬
tions to the Communist Broch. It is possible that
he would say to Messrs. Rothschild and Pratt, as
he said to Louis P. Lochner:

“We want also to look like patriots in every¬
thing we do. We want to get a lot of good
flags, talk a good deal about the Constitution
and what our forefathers wanted to make of this
country, and to show that we are the folks that
really stand for the spirit of our institutions."

That is what the leaders of the Youth Movement
in this country are trying to do with the Socialistic
Student Forum.

Continental Students All Socialists.

The information about the six students brought
over is all taken from the New Student.

ANTONIN PALECEK, Prague University, active
in “Student Rannaissance Movement,” chosen to
represent Cze.cho-Slovakia; “well acquainted with
the youth movements of his own country.”
JORGEN HOLCht, Copenhagen, Denmark, “liberal”
from the age of twelve; active in the University
Settlement of Copenhagen; took part in workers’
education; mixed up with Quakers in England; ad¬
vocate of “cooperation” on the Socialist plan; mem¬
ber of the Student Christian Movement; “spoke
for the Youth Movement in all Scandinavian
' countries.”

PIET ROEST, of the University of Leyden; mem¬
ber of the Practical Idealists Association, which is
a “fellowship of young people loosely banded to¬
gether to live their individual ideals.”

HANS TEISLER, representative of the German
. Youth Movement.

W. A. ROBSON, London School of Economics.
JOACHIM FRIEDRICH, University of Heidelberg,
another representative of the German Youth
Movement.

Wanted Only Representatives of Youth
Movement.

In selecting these foreign students, Messrs. Pratt;
and Rothschild wanted only representatives of the
German Youth Movement, no matter from what
country the student came. The Youth Movement
was born in Germany. Mr. Pratt, in writing of it as;
he found it, says:

“It shapes itself very much according to en¬
vironment and national situation, but owing to’
its intense idealistic base, it tends to unite in¬
ternationally. Although it has affected prac¬
tically every young person in Europe, it is made,
up essentially of strong minorities, and it is with

22

these minorities that we must deal, for in them
lies the true life of the movement.”

He admits in the next sentence that most of the
y.ouths in Europe are apathetic toward the movement,
“or definitely reactionary,” except in Germany.

Mixed Up With the “MOT DAG” Group.

While they were abroad Messrs. Pratt and Roths¬
child became favorably impressed with a “group” of
Communists in Norway referred to as the “Mot Dag
Group.” To Zinoviev of Moscow, who believes in
“direct action,” the brand of Communism dispensed
by the “Mot Dag Group,” while calculated to at¬
tract just such sentimentalists as Mr. Pratt, is not
quite all it should be. At the meeting of the “En¬
larged Executive” last June both Zinoviev and Buch-
arin said unkind things about the “Mot Dag Group,”
to which Messrs. Pratt and Rothschild had, after
their return to the United States, sent affectionate
greetings. Nasty words were spoken by Bucharin.
Hoeglund, Communist delegate from Norway, pro¬
tested, whereupon Zinoviev, answering Hoeglund,
said :

“Hoeglund defended the periodical, Mot Dag.

' Hoeglund demands that we should be loyal to
the Norwegian comrades. Of course we must be
loyal to comrades, but what must we do to peo¬
ple who use such shady weapons against us as
the ‘Mot Dag Group?’ ... All honor to the Nor¬
wegian proletariat! But how can we tolerate
it when certain individuals write thus in its
name?”

Clearly, this Mot Dag Group, of which Messrs.
Pratt and Rothschild approve, is a child of Moscow
to be disciplined by Moscow, which shows how close
to the Third International the National Student
Forum stands.

Disciplined By Communist International.

In the same speech Zinoviev made it clear that the
“Mot Dag” represented the Young Communist
League, and that the Young Communist League was
a part of the International at Moscow.

“It is the duty of the Young Communist
League,” asserted Zinoviev, “to submit to the
discipline of the International.” (Let the “foam¬
ing youths” who have discarded all laws keep
this in mind; they must “submit to the discipline
of the International.”) “We must object to
contemptuous manner in which the Youth Move¬
ment was referred to. The Youth Movement is
the best section of the Communist International
and that is as it should be, because they are the
heralds of the future.”

23

“Give- our regards to the ‘Mot Dag Group/ ” wrote
Messrs. Pratt and Rothschild in their letters to
Broch, the Norway Communist who was not given
permission to land in the United States. However,
it is but just to these young Americans to say that
their admiration for the “Mot Dag Group” was not
allowed by them to lessen their loyalty to the Youth
Movement as a whole. They agree with Zinoviev
that “the Youth Movement is the best section of the
International.”

“That strong, pure, idealistic spirit which is
the Youth Movement,” writes Mr. Pratt in the
New Student for November 4, 1922, “stands far
above and ahead of the other movements of the
world.”

Games In Physical Nakedness.

A further reading of the New Student should dis¬
pel any doubt that the National Student stands for
all that is embraced in the doctrines of the German
Youth Movement. Take the issue of December 2,
1922, for example. On page five is begun a long
article by Lillian Frobenius Eagle on “A Confer¬
ence of Youth in Central Europe.” A brief quota¬
tion will suffice:

“As one of the chief aims of the Young Peo¬
ple’s Movement is to awaken a new attitude and
feeling towards the human body, and the nude is
regarded in the Hellenic spirit, many of the
participants in the game were naked.”

The entire article is a panegyric on the Youth
Movement, following closely along the lines fol¬
lowed by Mr. Pratt in his article on the same sub¬
ject written from Germany. The youths of the Youth
Movement are called, in the New Student:

“The forerunners of a new humanity, the
prophets and seers, the torch-bearers of those
who are to accomplish and fulfill their visions.”

Miss Eagle visualizes these spiritual youths for
the National Student Forum:

“A lonely hilltop in the darkness of the sur-
. rounding world. ... A red glow of fire shining
on the visionary eyes of a new youth whose gaze
is bent inwards while they stretch forth hands *
to the youth of other lands to come and join
their ranks.”

And in another paragraph of the same article:

“With eyes straining into the future, they say,
‘We are a handful of young people, naked and
unknowing, but striving to realize God in a
world of gross materialism by the realization of
ourselves in a higher life. Let him who feels
the Call join our ranks and help us.”

24

Sex Studies “Ideal.”

To the National Student Forum as a body every¬
thing about the Youth Movement is “ideal.” A cur¬
riculum proposed by the Barnard students is called
by these students, some of whom are on the executive
board of the National Student Forum, “ideal.” This
curriculum includes: “SPECIFIC HUMAN DE¬
VELOPMENT OF SEX- REPRODUCTIVE
CHILDBEARING FUNCTION.”

“a- — The facts of structure, function, develop¬
ment and hygiene of the sex and reproductive
apparatus of the male and female.

"b* — The outstanding facts of paternity and
maternity.

<<c- — The effects of sex on individual human
development from fertilization to maturity.

“d* — The nature and power of the sex impulse.
“e- — The gradually developed sex controls im¬
posed on the individual by society.

“f- — The pathological effects of perverse and
unsocial uses of sex in society.”

In this fulsome praise of the “daring young ladies”
who sponsored this “ideal” curriculum, which is
given in full in the New Student, Upton Sinclair, in
The Goose-Step, likens it to the work being done in
Germany by the World League of Youth, and quotes
from the Manifesto Weltjugendliga:

“Comrades! We are united in the hatred of the
institutions of our social life and of our time.
We ask ourselves: whose fault are these institu¬
tions, this civilization? On whose conscience
rest these political systems, these schools, these
churches, these politics, these newspapers, and so
much else? The adult people.”

“The unifying characteristic of the Youth
Movement,” says one of the German leaders,
“is this: we no longer want to obey laws that
come from without. We want to form our lives
in accordance with the laws that are within us.”

There you have it. The adult people being re¬
sponsible for the present laws and customs, the wise
youths, boys and girls alike, will have none of them.
They will “roll their own,” or have none. And
Barnard, with its Social Science Club a working
constituent part of the National Student Forum, be¬
gins by insisting upon an exhaustive study of sex in
the classroom.

“The Call of Youth.”

Under this head, in one of the New Student articles
written from Germany, young Mr. Pratt tells the
world his opinion of the “old men.” You will have
noticed that he writes the word, “civilization,” when
he refers to the pre-war type, in quotation marks.
This, I take it, is meant to show that there was never
any prospect of true civilization till youths such as

25

he and Mr. Rothschild and the Barnard “daring
young ladies2’ took things in hand. In the
which I shall quote Mr. Pratt is referring, of course,
to the youth of the Youth Movement. He says:

“This youth knows that the better, 1
social structures must be built by it, and, not y
the products of that ancient ‘civilization which
crashed to ruin in the great war. We in Amer¬
ica must realize our position towards the youth
of other nations, and toward the development ot
our own country and its people as a part of thej
world. That youth is foolish and unreliable, 3
that youth can not be trusted with the responsi¬
bility of great things, is the babble of old men.|
“It is they,” the wise and youthful Mr. Pratt ^
continues to heap it up on the babbling old men, j
“who have shown that they are unfit to govern,
and decide, and it is upon them the responsibility j
for the future rests.

“We students who are to be the guides for
the future must get to know each other ... We
must realize the essential unity of our aims. . . .
Youth seems to be uniting, determined to bring

about a new order.” 1

That the Youth of America might the more clearly
hear the Call, the New Student announced in its
April 21st number, under the heading: “SUMMER,
WITH THE GERMAN YOUTH MOVEMENT,”
that the National Student Forum would send five or
six students to Germany to study the Youth Move¬
ment. As an inducement, the New Student added!

“Our German friends have submitted a plan
whereby these students may be matriculated at
a German University where will be gathered
many of those most interested in the Youth
Movement — for it is a simple matter for a Ger¬

man to change his University. The Americans
will later be introduced to the new schools, the
prison work, etc., and will finally go on a Wan-
dervogel tramp perhaps in Thuringen.”

And so on page six of the New Student’s issue oi
November 3, last, Mr. Rothschild has an article tell¬
ing of the results of that plan. He says that or
June 26 “seven American students waved good-by<
from the steerage deck of the steamship Reliance t(
us on the pier.”

Those who went were: Arvia MacKaye, daughte:
of Percy MacKaye and a student of Radcliffe’; Helei
Stedman, graduate of the University of Oregon ani
a student at Madison, Wise.; Lenore Pelham,
graduate of Rockford College; Eugene Corbie, j
negro student of the College of the City of Ne\
York; Howard Becker, of Northwestern University
Evanston, Ill.; Earl Bellman, of Friends University
Wichita, Kan.; and Douglas Haskell, of Oberlii

26

Joseph Chassell of the Union Theological Seminary,
and Ruth Boardman, a Barnard student, joined the
others at Hamburg, and remained, adds Mr. Roths¬
child, “with them through most of the trip.”

Works In Harmony With Civil Liberties Union.

Not only does the National Student Forum,
through its leader, George D. Pratt, Jr., stand for
Roger N. Baldwin, leader of the American Civil
Liberties Union, but — again through Mr. Pratt — it
defends the American Civil Liberties Union in so
many words. Let me quote again from young Mr.
Pratt’s letter to me:

“Roger Baldwin is an upstanding American
and his patriotism, which admittedly runs coun¬
ter to yours, is tha-t love of liberty and justice
which have constituted the greatness of the great
men of the nation, and which small men in every
generation have mistaken for treason.”

Evidently, Mr. Baldwin has succeeded in “looking
like a patriot” to Mr. Pratt. He seems also to have
succeeded, with his “talk about the Constitution and
what our forefathers wanted to make of this coun¬
try,” in making the American Civil Liberties Union
look like what Mr. Pratt says he believes it is: “A
bona fide American defense society. It defends,”
continues Mr. Pratt, “the basic American institutions
of law and order.”

Mr. Baldwin says, and Mr. Pratt knew this to be a
fact when he wrote the letter from which I am .quot¬
ing, the members of the American Civil Liberties
Union :

“All of them believe in the right of persons
to advocate the ‘overthrow of the government
by force and violence.’ ”

He knew also that the American Civil Liberties
Union backs up these “persons” when they are mak¬
ing such advocacy, and try to get such “persons”
out of prison that they may continue to “advocate
the overthrow of the government by force and
violence.”

Mr. Rothschild is a member of the American Civil
Liberties Union by his own admission to me, and
Mr. Pratt writes:

“Despite the fact that you see the Civil
Liberties Union ‘red,’ it is, in our observation, a
valuable restraining agency at a time when there,
is a general recourse to violence in suppressing
unpopular elements.”

The American Civil Liberties Union is a supporter
of, and is supported by, the National Student Forum:
And the American Civil Liberties Union, as the Na¬
tional Student Forum knows, has been officially;
listed, after a thorough investigation, as “a supporter
of all subversive movements.”

27

The

American Defense
Society, Inc.

National Headquarters,

Suits 1133, 154 Nassau Street,

New York, N. Y.

Washington Bureau,

Suite 709, Aebee Building,
Washington, D. C.

The Society is a voluntary membership organ*
ization deriving its financial support from the yearly
dues of its subscribers. Join the Society and help
in the fight for American Defense. Membership
schedule per year, Regular, $1.00 ; Subscribing,
$5.00 ; Contributing, $10.00 ; Sustaining, $50.00 ;
National Committeemen, $100.00; Donor, $250.00.
Write for report of 1922, list of publications, etc.

“KEEP up the EIGHT FOR AMERICANISM.” — T. R.

To Benj. L. Allen, Treasurer

The American Defense Society, Inc.,

154 Nassau St., New York, N. Y.

_ _ 192

Dear Sir:

Enclosed is check for $ -

to help carry on the work of THE AMERICAN
DEFENSE SOCIETY.

Name

(Please Print)

Street

PD

1 . 2. 6.

IRVING BANK- City
COLUMBIA
TRUST CO.
Depository

/

rA i/>

<0 rf - * < o

^ *■ '* k"^ *" j>

a ~i *■ ^Y-lAr-^M s> r O J

' ^ * • ' 1 * ^ °^ * 0 " 0 ° A0

**0„ «.5* a^^ c\ *9 * « * «>*

• ^ / -

o * A

o

° v> °Jrv. °

/ ^ °.

<v o

%. , c.0 *w®t\ ^ .-r ,

^°<. -life' *°-n*.

f * • » ° 0 a° 'V. * •• ’ ■ -■?>* '

. ^ *T ♦ • i #i ' . * « V * '£&?.

• ^ & '£Mfrh\ "% <? '

- *v 'Mm/A. vv °

*4. ^

* ^ <LV ci> *

*^vT* ^ % ’

f. t0' (, • o0 V .

« * ^
*' -°° fc

‘ %. MkJ •

/ A %■

■>•** ^ •C- '•'...'

<, j

& * . * A

d> " ( ■> <V

kT> 9 *

'>* v*k o
O >

<& o « c „ <0

<-© • _r^v * ^

N <. c5iX\\WV -T ~y

i9 ■*!

,0 V *

A

V s 5 • * '

<• •*> A .‘

’. W ;

• ** V *.

C. *'--.♦ ^ *

.0* • c # # ^ <3

C * <&/}???-, * °

-»

«* *4

^ 0

> -a? •«

^ ^> ji

)' V * •"«'••' <9^ °;’0° a0"

i'*-*0' ^ V cv ,9 * * ‘ °

o V

a
<3

^ 0

° " 0 A

♦ v j>* .
\<? :

>

& ,»* ^

^ a'1 - V

> V ,!’* %

o
*

* <£>' °o

o • '-.«* > * 00V °o

jv o^/M\\v* aV^

* *o & 0 w G -» <£

tV »

s,\ ^ w ,

S*; *b v* »

4 O ■

V vCv «/>

r «> c- V a

<J> ' * ' 1 " .V ^4. * 0 " ° ° -0'

0* * \ m°* \> V »1VL'* c\ ,0^

* <V* °

»' ,,<- <*x> *„„

4° 'V '•* ..

• %. -0 m ^ 1 6 + O *&' r ° * ° A>

«■ C sLjrfrZ* ° •<U^v% ^

* r$ irSlr^r^^r < ^ o /i\nssSA1L^ *

h q

V .. ^ ^ y

V ^ a9 ^ V s!

A, Tv *l> ► ♦ A A *

- • ™y ^ ' * *

4 C>

>L- f O

> * V

DOBBS BROS.

) LIBRARY BINDING

NOV 6 9 >* ^ % \

ST. AUGUSTINE *> .\V ^

FLA. • ..-v A. ''^■4^- ^